|
Post by bear (Deceased) on Apr 12, 2012 22:48:28 GMT 9
Looks are in eye of the beholder, someone once said that. I think it should look like a well care for working aircraft. If you want to see what a poor, bad example is look at 003 at Pima, where as the one at Selfridge and Pete field are closer to normal every day flying aircraft they are stored outside exposed to the elements. The one at KI when I seen it was during it's coming out party so it was bright and polished up. These are the one I have seen. There are aircraft in small town's on a stick that look better than 003 and most of them have been there 20 to 40 years.
Bear
|
|
|
Post by pat perry on Apr 12, 2012 23:11:34 GMT 9
Guys, I can't thank you enough for all the info and your efforts. This is like on the job training on steroids! It's excellent. Based on all your info, we are going to leave things alone that are in place and work around things, unless it's absolutely necessary to remove them. This also fits into our decision making about whether to go all out restoration so that things look like they did directly from the Convair factory, or try to retain some operational history and restore it so that it would appear as it would have on the flightline(ie: with a bit of "patina" still there). There is always a raging debate as to how much "patina" you can remove before all historical value is compromised. Maybe there is a blend of "new" and "historical" that can be achieved to satisfy both camps. Any thoughts on this from you guys? Dave, I would freshen up the paint using Mil-Spec colors for the F-106. I would not spray it with clear coat unless it will be stored out in the weather. The sun fades the Mil-spec colors in 3-4 years without clearcoat. The 456th FIS six on display at Castle Air Museum was painted 8 years ago and clear coated and has been in the hot sun ever since. It still looks great thanks To Ralph Robledo and his son Dean who wash it several times a year. It's amazing how much damage sun, bird poop and the occasional sand storm can cause to paint. The radome looks pretty good in the pictures and may still have the elastomeric coating on it. If you ever have to repaint it, consider a truck bed-liner coating as the elastomeric is expensive and hard to paint and also sun fades over time. TO 1-1-4 Exterior Finishes, Insignia and Markings is here www.f-106deltadart.com/manuals_documents.htmAs to a tribute paint theme that's up to you. Here's the history of her service www.convairf-106deltadart.com/590164Page.htmlThere's also nothing prettier than a F-106 returning from Depot with fresh paint and no squadron adornment. Pat P.
|
|
dave0164
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 34
Location:
Joined: December 2011
|
Post by dave0164 on Apr 12, 2012 23:20:24 GMT 9
Guys, thanks for the input. I like the idea of an operational bird fresh out of Depot. We will revisit this when the paint and refinish time comes. I had no idea about the nosecone paint, just looked flat black to me. The nosecone of 0164 is in very good condition but it does have some nicks and scratches where the fiber of fiberglass is showing. Best way to repair? are we talking the dreaded bondo or re-fiberglass the areas? Your thoughs again would be appreciated.
Dave
|
|
dave0164
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 34
Location:
Joined: December 2011
|
Post by dave0164 on Apr 18, 2012 5:01:06 GMT 9
Progress update 4/17/12:
Managed to remove the two ejection seats and get a better look at the insides. I will post new pics this evening. Still trying to design and fabricate a strong enough jig to hold up the rear and allow the doors to cycle. Will begin to remove and restore cockpit instruments as well as try and locate those that are missing.
Here's an interesting footnote. About 3 years ago I purchased a 106 seat from a guy in Illinois to have in the office, and to restore. He has a large airplane collection, and was getting rid of a few things. One of those things was an F-106 seat. Turns out it was an Aft seat out of a B model.
Fast forward to this morning. I was looking at that seat in my office to see if it had any of the parts that were missing on the Aft seat I took out. All of a sudden, I noticed the number that was stenciled on the seat - 90164. The hair stood up on the back of my neck. I went to the hangar to look at the Aft seat - and it belonged to another s/n 106B! So, out of sheer chance, the rear seat has been re-united with it's original airframe. No kidding. It's almost creepy, in a good kind of way. Just a little anectdote that I thought would be interesting.
I'll keep you all updated.
Dave
|
|
MOW
Administrator
Owner/Operator
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,821
Location:
Joined: September 2003
Retired: USAF, Civil Service
|
Post by MOW on Apr 18, 2012 5:23:48 GMT 9
Progress update 4/17/12: Managed to remove the two ejection seats and get a better look at the insides. I will post new pics this evening. Still trying to design and fabricate a strong enough jig to hold up the rear and allow the doors to cycle. Will begin to remove and restore cockpit instruments as well as try and locate those that are missing. Here's an interesting footnote. About 3 years ago I purchased a 106 seat from a guy in Illinois to have in the office, and to restore. He has a large airplane collection, and was getting rid of a few things. One of those things was an F-106 seat. Turns out it was an Aft seat out of a B model. Fast forward to this morning. I was looking at that seat in my office to see if it had any of the parts that were missing on the Aft seat I took out. All of a sudden, I noticed the number that was stenciled on the seat - 90164. The hair stood up on the back of my neck. I went to the hangar to look at the Aft seat - and it belonged to another s/n 106B! So, out of sheer chance, the rear seat has been re-united with it's original airframe. No kidding. It's almost creepy, in a good kind of way. Just a little anectdote that I thought would be interesting. I'll keep you all updated. Dave Nothing short of fate Dave! :2thumbsup
|
|
|
Post by lindel on Apr 18, 2012 7:15:20 GMT 9
Wow! Dave, when this is finally all said and done, you are going to have one heck of a tale to tell.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 18, 2012 8:16:08 GMT 9
Make note of all the particulars of this and include it as part of the history- perhaps on a placard.. The Old Sarge
|
|
sixfixer
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 52
Location:
Joined: June 2004
|
Post by sixfixer on Apr 23, 2012 9:23:33 GMT 9
Guys, I can't thank you enough for all the info and your efforts. This is like on the job training on steroids! It's excellent. Based on all your info, we are going to leave things alone that are in place and work around things, unless it's absolutely necessary to remove them. This also fits into our decision making about whether to go all out restoration so that things look like they did directly from the Convair factory, or try to retain some operational history and restore it so that it would appear as it would have on the flightline(ie: with a bit of "patina" still there). There is always a raging debate as to how much "patina" you can remove before all historical value is compromised. Maybe there is a blend of "new" and "historical" that can be achieved to satisfy both camps. Any thoughts on this from you guys? I have had the same conversation concerning our Six (and our other aircraft) at McChord - what I've chosen to do is to incorporate some of the "beautification projects" from the 318th William Tell's and air shows in the period that we chose to represent (late 70's/ 80's). Our goal is to keep our aircraft as historically accurate as possible (unfortunately our Base painters seem to always drift off of that plan - especially on our "Six" ) , since I'm a model builder - I'm pretty critical on paint schemes that I see on museum aircraft (ours and others), so those small details that are missed or are done incorrectly really stick out. Quick story - In 2003, was very fortunate to have a chance to travel down to Gila Bend where a number of Sixes were being stored for the Bombing range down there, one of the jets there (59-0147) was a 318th William Tell bird. 147 went straight to DM from McChord and was not converted into a drone - so she was largely in the same condition as she was when left the 318. To make a long story short - I was able to get into her cockpit; to my surprise (besides the missing instrument panel), the cockpit was totally repainted in a nice satin interior grey color, a great way to go to William Tell! Needless to say - that gave me the historical "ok" to paint our Six in the same way! As for a theme, I'd like to make one suggestion - since you have an ADWC "B" model - how about painting her as General Chappie James personal aircraft? Chappie is a very historic man - on many levels, I think that would be a great tribute! One of the really unique things about Chappie's B model was the fact that he had nose art on is Six (picture below) If you were to paint up your Six as Chappie's airplane, you would have a chance to add some nose art to your cockpit, which will add some color, especially since you don't have a tail for a tailflash. However, I think the main draw would be the history of Chappie himself - a great story that works well with your display! I know your airplane has gel lights installed (another piece of cool "Six" history) - I'm not sure what your plans are for them, but the art could be incorporated in the aircraft with the lights installed (most visitors wouldn't know that they shouldn't be there, only us F-106 geeks would really know - but I'd let it slide :2thumbsup ). You could also renumber her (data plate) as Chappie's bird - 59-0165 - the last F-106B built, and since it was the CINC NORAD's bird - it was kept up in good condition (inside and out ! ) Keep up the good work! Ernie "sixfixer" Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 23, 2012 10:55:54 GMT 9
sweet photo!!!
|
|
dave0164
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 34
Location:
Joined: December 2011
|
Post by dave0164 on Apr 25, 2012 21:49:46 GMT 9
Ernie,
Thanks for the post! I like the idea. I don't think you could find a more deserving individual.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by bear (Deceased) on Jun 1, 2012 4:23:19 GMT 9
Dave0164 Just wondering things are progressing?
Bear
|
|
dave0164
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 34
Location:
Joined: December 2011
|
Post by dave0164 on Jun 9, 2012 23:56:14 GMT 9
Gents: Here's a quick update on our progress. First, let me express a big "Thumbs Up" to Bear on coming through the recent surgury and wish him a speedy recovery :2thumbsup . I have been fairly busy with work and have not had many opportunities to be at the hangar with any consistancy. That said, we have started removing the side panel instruments from the forward and aft cockpits for cleaning and restoration. Lots and lots of wires!! Whoever handled the wiring on these, they have my sympathies. I have also found that it does not pay to be 6'2" 220lbs and work in these small areas. I may have to hire a circus contortionist. We are employing the ole shop vac to suck out all the accumulated dust and sand from 28 years in the arizona desert. At present, we are welding up a jig that is designed to attach to the rear bulkhead and serve as the main support- including the nose gear. Thanks for all the prior feedback on this subject, because we have taken it to heart and are confident that we have a good and stable solution. This should allow for operation of the weapons bay, while securing the airframe for stability. We are scheduled to have the ole girl off the trailer and on her own by the end of this month. She has become a very interesting project - the more we work on her, the more she requires. That sounds like a familiar theme! - no offense ladies, I'm sure the same can be said for us guys. I will try and post more pics as we go along. I am hoping lugnuts55 and lindel can be present for the move to lend a hand. We are also putting together a wish list of missing items in case anyone here knows where they might be found. We are removing many of the system parts that we don't need and that won't be seen, in order to lighten the overall weight. Thanks, and I'll keep you all posted.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by lugnuts55 on Jun 10, 2012 3:37:24 GMT 9
I'm glad to see that the interest is there among the troops. I just got in touch with Dave in the last few days and we discussed a few things. But mostly it was about the jig being welded and getting ready for the whole transfer from the trailer to the floor. That means the jig at the rear and the nose gear down and locked.
I am retired myself, but I can relate to Dave's comment about working and just being busy. I have many things going on in my life right now that I don't think I could find time to work. However, I do have the flexibility in my schedule to be on hand for the transfer from the trailer to the floor. That is, with enough notice I can juggle things. I will do my best to be there to record the event in pictures. I will post it here when there are new pictures.
|
|
MOW
Administrator
Owner/Operator
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,821
Location:
Joined: September 2003
Retired: USAF, Civil Service
|
Post by MOW on Jun 10, 2012 6:32:12 GMT 9
Glad to hear progress is being made :2thumbsup Wouldn't it be nice if we could be there to hoist that girl off the trailer and onto the jig? Oh well, something else to dream about :salute
|
|
dave0164
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 34
Location:
Joined: December 2011
|
Post by dave0164 on Aug 24, 2012 0:03:25 GMT 9
Hey guys, just a quick note to let everyone know that we are making progress (albeit slow) with the rear support brace. Just posted some pictures of the tac welding stage with the initial build. Brace will be reinforced with 1/2" steel gussets at the corners and main crossbrace will be doubled with 2" x 8" channel steel. Still debating the final attach points for better support and structural strength. We might use threaded 3/4" rods that will extend through 3 or 4 bulkhead frames, along with the basic bolt on points. Feel free to chime in with any thoughts. I'll keep everyone posted as we continue to move at a snail's pace! Dave 4 new pics here www.f-106deltadart.com/display_590164_timmerman-airport.htmPat P added URL
|
|
|
Post by pat perry on Aug 24, 2012 5:20:17 GMT 9
Hey guys, just a quick note to let everyone know that we are making progress (albeit slow) with the rear support brace. Just posted some pictures of the tac welding stage with the initial build. Brace will be reinforced with 1/2" steel gussets at the corners and main crossbrace will be doubled with 2" x 8" channel steel. Still debating the final attach points for better support and structural strength. We might use threaded 3/4" rods that will extend through 3 or 4 bulkhead frames, along with the basic bolt on points. Feel free to chime in with any thoughts. I'll keep everyone posted as we continue to move at a snail's pace! Dave 4 new pics here www.f-106deltadart.com/display_590164_timmerman-airport.htmPat P added URL Looking good Dave! How much does that thing weigh? I'd estimate about 2500 to 3000 pounds. Will the 3/4 inch rods hold the weight like a cantilever? Or will you have a belly support made of sheet steel (maybe 1/4 inch) to support the weight and just let the rods hold it for stability? Just trying to visualize how the support will work. Will it be kind of like an three point engine stand for a car engine with box members running from the rear support like a triangle and converging under the nose up front? With dolly wheels located at the three corners? Pat P.
|
|
MOW
Administrator
Owner/Operator
Currently: Offline
Posts: 5,821
Location:
Joined: September 2003
Retired: USAF, Civil Service
|
Post by MOW on Aug 24, 2012 5:26:24 GMT 9
Hey guys, just a quick note to let everyone know that we are making progress (albeit slow) with the rear support brace. Just posted some pictures of the tac welding stage with the initial build. Brace will be reinforced with 1/2" steel gussets at the corners and main crossbrace will be doubled with 2" x 8" channel steel. Still debating the final attach points for better support and structural strength. We might use threaded 3/4" rods that will extend through 3 or 4 bulkhead frames, along with the basic bolt on points. Feel free to chime in with any thoughts. I'll keep everyone posted as we continue to move at a snail's pace! Dave 4 new pics here www.f-106deltadart.com/display_590164_timmerman-airport.htmPat P added URL Very nice Dave. Thanks for the update and photos :2thumbsup
|
|
dave0164
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 34
Location:
Joined: December 2011
|
Post by dave0164 on Aug 24, 2012 6:09:19 GMT 9
We're still trying to figure out the best way for this whole rig to work. Our initial concept was for the front to be supported by the nose gear, and the back supported by the jig. The jig will be attached to the spar with high strength bolts running through the spar (in holes already present), and the spar will be sandwiched between the jig and 1/4" thick steel plates on the inside of the spar. The two angled vertical and lower horizontal spar component are "C" channel. The upper horizontal component is "I" beam. Once the jig is bolted to the rear spar structure, we will drill for long bolts (36-40") that will pass through the main rear spar and thread into the next 3 forward bulkhead components which will be sandwiched with washers and nuts on both sides of each inner spar. The main difficulty is to keep the belly area clear of any support structure so that the bay doors can function as originally designed ( but slower, with substitute actuators). The main rear jig will then have vertical legs that will hold the airframe at the correct height, as if parked on a ramp. We are going to try and lighten things up as much as possible by removing internal systems that will not be seen or needed for the display. We expect the finished rear jig to weigh in at around 350-400 lbs. Still lots of questions and discussions going on to make sure that the rear support structure will handle not only the weight, but minimize any torque effects on the main rear spar. We're swagging this whole deal, so don't be shy to chip in with thoughts or ideas.
Best, Dave
|
|
|
Post by pat perry on Aug 24, 2012 10:21:06 GMT 9
We're still trying to figure out the best way for this whole rig to work. Our initial concept was for the front to be supported by the nose gear, and the back supported by the jig. The jig will be attached to the spar with high strength bolts running through the spar (in holes already present), and the spar will be sandwiched between the jig and 1/4" thick steel plates on the inside of the spar. The two angled vertical and lower horizontal spar component are "C" channel. The upper horizontal component is "I" beam. Once the jig is bolted to the rear spar structure, we will drill for long bolts (36-40") that will pass through the main rear spar and thread into the next 3 forward bulkhead components which will be sandwiched with washers and nuts on both sides of each inner spar. The main difficulty is to keep the belly area clear of any support structure so that the bay doors can function as originally designed ( but slower, with substitute actuators). The main rear jig will then have vertical legs that will hold the airframe at the correct height, as if parked on a ramp. We are going to try and lighten things up as much as possible by removing internal systems that will not be seen or needed for the display. We expect the finished rear jig to weigh in at around 350-400 lbs. Still lots of questions and discussions going on to make sure that the rear support structure will handle not only the weight, but minimize any torque effects on the main rear spar. We're swagging this whole deal, so don't be shy to chip in with thoughts or ideas. Best, Dave Dave, Sounds like you have a good plan with three points of floor contact and rotational (torque) stability with the long bolts. If I understand correctly, the steel plates on the inside of the spar will also be a load bearing surface so that the bolts aren't the only load bearing points at the jig contact. Are you going to tow that rig with a tow bar on the ground or on a wheeled trailer? Thanks, Pat P.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Aug 24, 2012 12:14:58 GMT 9
Dave, a suggestion....... not knowing what size bolts you are going to use, nor the size of the holes in the spar and bulkheads, you are, no doubt going to have more hole than bolt. Suggest that you make fillers for those holes so that the bolts can not shift out of position. This will mean that you will have to have washers and nuts on both sides of the bulkhead. I have no idea how you are going to get this all in alignment, but just sandwiching the bulkhead between washers and nuts will not allow the bolts to act as torsion bars or levers. Suggest, also that you use the largest bolts you can get!!!!! The Old Sarge
|
|